The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[MerricB]

I play a fighter/wizard/eldritch knight currently, and what I wanted was a fighter (basically) who could occasionally blast out some magic missiles or lob a fireball on opportune occasions.

Unfortunately, what I got was a guy who couldn't engage in melee because he had no hit points, and who couldn't cast powerful enough spells to make a dent in the monsters ... and ended up standing around sighing sadly while the paladin did all the fighting and the straight wizard blasted everything to smithereens.

Hmm. The Eldritch Knight in my group has the following build:

Ranger 2/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 3

It's an interesting - and effective - character. Incredible perception skills, so he's normally the first to notice any threat around, and then really good ranged weapon abilities. He backs this up with a few nice spells, often on the miscellaneous list, although there's a few fireball and magic missiles being thrown about. The Practised Spellcaster feat means that his fireballs are as effective as the other wizard's in the group.

He's not a melee character, though.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

This of course is why you are unable to break free of your view that class balance = balanced combat ability.

The existence of alternatives to combat as the sole means of conflict resolution has bugger-all to do with how much emphasis should be placed on combat as the measure of class capability. The fact remains that within the D&D paradigm, combat takes central stage in forming that measure. This is true both in terms of the underlying ruleset assumptions, and (very likely) how the majority of people actually play the game. Therefore, any sensible discussion of class balance that actually presumes to have relevance to the game at large will take that into account, otherwise you're just off talking to the daisies. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Turjan]

This of course is why you are unable to break free of your view that class balance = balanced combat ability.

Well, I very much appreciate the view that class balance = balanced combat ability, thank you. Everything else is just icing on the cake. This has nothing to do with the question whether you play just hack'n'slash or a different style.

Perhaps combat-related and non-combat-related class abilities should be handled separately. Then again, this is not really topic of the thread. It's more about the scalability of abilities and spells.

 

[knifespeaks]

The existence of alternatives to combat as the sole means of conflict resolution has bugger-all to do with how much emphasis should be placed on combat as the measure of class capability. The fact remains that within the D&D paradigm, combat takes central stage in forming that measure.

Another way to say this is if there are alternatives, they don't have as much relevance as combat. Which is akin to saying that if you can't stand toe-to-toe with an equal level creature, then your class lacks balance relative to one that can.

Therefore, any sensible discussion of class balance that actually presumes to have relevance to the game at large will take that into account

You are arguing for wholsesale changes, based on one aspect of the game. Sensible discussion looks at the whole, not simply one aspect which dominates the game that is played.

Well, I very much appreciate the view that class balance = balanced combat ability, thank you. Everything else is just icing on the cake. This has nothing to do with the question whether you play just hack'n'slash or a different style.

Why have different classes then? Balance means you don't do something as well as someone else, but you have abilities they don't. If everyone performing equally well in combat is so important to you, then simply eliminate the classes combinations that offend you - but, the mechanic that allows a fighter to take d10 points of damage against a wizard's d4 isn't broken.

It's more about the scalability of abilities and spells.

No, it's about players playing to their strengths relative to the environment, rather than each other - if you lack the ability to take and dish out melee damage, then you avoid melee. The fact that another class CAN take more damage in melee than another has no bearing on whether the two classes are balanced.

I am convinced both of you either have played, or do play Everquest. For 5 long years I endured the game and the forums, both guild and dev, for EQ. And class balance was often the bone of contention.

D&D suffers no such issue, because the game doesn't have to be played as a slugfest between two opponents. Muticlassed characters are balanced, simply because they have more options - in exactly the same way rogues are balanced against fighters and wizards.

So a multiclassed rogue 10/wizard 2 only has first level spells? What's wrong with that - if you want higher level spells, you have to invest in wizard levels. I fail to see why there is any issue here.

 

[rounser]

Muticlassed characters are balanced, simply because they have more options - in exactly the same way rogues are balanced against fighters and wizards.

More ways to suck isn't balanced. I think a lot of this is hinging on how currently a jack-of-all-trades (or even a jack-of-a-couple-of-trades) character pays too much for these options, based on how they stack up against a character who does specialise.

In other words, the game penalises not specialising a bit too much, perhaps.

 

[hong]

Another way to say this is if there are alternatives, they don't have as much relevance as combat.

Poppycock. They are plenty relevant to any individual game, with the degree of relevance depending on the particulars of each game. They are LESS relevant to any discussion of class balance, especially when you start talking about features that are supposed to be common across games.

Which is akin to saying that if you can't stand toe-to-toe with an equal level creature, then your class lacks balance relative to one that can.

Correct.

You are arguing for wholsesale changes, based on one aspect of the game. Sensible discussion looks at the whole, not simply one aspect which dominates the game that is played.

Sensible discussion looks at the whole, decides which aspect dominates the game, and tries to correct what causes problems with that aspect before moving on to other aspects.

When trying to fix a flat tire, do you start by changing all the tires to see which one is flat?

Why have different classes then?

Legacy reasons. NEXT!

Balance means you don't do something as well as someone else, but you have abilities they don't. If everyone performing equally well in combat is so important to you, then simply eliminate the classes combinations that offend you - but, the mechanic that allows a fighter to take d10 points of damage against a wizard's d4 isn't broken.

Did anyone say it was?

No, it's about players playing to their strengths relative to the environment, rather than each other - if you lack the ability to take and dish out melee damage, then you avoid melee. The fact that another class CAN take more damage in melee than another has no bearing on whether the two classes are balanced.

You have somehow managed to distil the challenges of adventuring down to "who lasts longest in melee". This must be another example of that "imagination" thingy I keep hearing about.

D&D suffers no such issue, because the game doesn't have to be played as a slugfest between two opponents.

So a DM can always compensate for any balance shortcomings that exist. So friggin' what? The shortcomings are still there, and you have simply shifted the question. Why SHOULD the DM have to compensate, when the problem is with the ruleset in the first place?

Muticlassed characters are balanced, simply because they have more options

Just because it's trotted out like a mantra doesn't make it true.

Multiclassed characters in general may be more flexible than single-classed characters, but that was never in dispute. It's when you come to multiclassed CASTERS that the argument goes out the window. Compare the options available to a 16th level cleric, or a 16th level wizard, to those available to an 8/8 cleric/wizard. The multiclassed guy can't teleport, can't use contact other plane, can't passwall, and can't cast wall of force. He's waited 6 levels to get the use of dim door and improved invis compared to the wizard, or air walk and restoration compared to the cleric.

He can cast stoneskin, but it lasts for half as long as the wizard's, or divine favor, but it gives half the bonus of the cleric's. He can't go toe-to-toe like a cleric, because of those 8 wizard HD, and he can't blast monsters from afar, because of those 8 cleric levels dragging down his fireball damage. Even if you only look at low-level spells, the cleric and wiz both have the option of filling all their high-level slots with low-level spells, should the situation demand it. So what, exactly, is the multiclassed schmuck supposed to do?

And as has been said before, D&D is a game designed for a group, not a sole PC. When you come to the group situation, a party that has access to all the spells of a high-level cleric and a high-level wizard will be able to meet a far wider variety of challenges than one that is hamstrung by only having low-level spells. So where, exactly, is this "flexibility"?

- in exactly the same way rogues are balanced against fighters and wizards.

Heh.

 

[Turjan]

Why have different classes then? Balance means you don't do something as well as someone else, but you have abilities they don't. If everyone performing equally well in combat is so important to you, then simply eliminate the classes combinations that offend you - but, the mechanic that allows a fighter to take d10 points of damage against a wizard's d4 isn't broken.

What do you want to achieve with this example? Nobody in this thread doubts that fighters and wizards are equally efficient in combat. They have different styles, but the classes as they are built are both viable in this context. Some other classes are not.

No, it's about players playing to their strengths relative to the environment, rather than each other - if you lack the ability to take and dish out melee damage, then you avoid melee. The fact that another class CAN take more damage in melee than another has no bearing on whether the two classes are balanced.

You seem not to get the point. There are class concepts that are good at dishing out melee damage, some have a special style (like sneak attack) for compensation, some are good at ranged attacks and some are good with magic attacks. And then there are some class concepts that are not good at any of these. At higher levels they cannot achieve anything in combat. That's a design flaw.

I am convinced both of you either have played, or do play Everquest. For 5 long years I endured the game and the forums, both guild and dev, for EQ. And class balance was often the bone of contention.

Sorry to challenge your conviction, but I never played Everquest. All I heard about it sounded pretty boring (of course, YMMV).

D&D suffers no such issue, because the game doesn't have to be played as a slugfest between two opponents. Muticlassed characters are balanced, simply because they have more options - in exactly the same way rogues are balanced against fighters and wizards.

No, this is not right. Rogues as a single class are already balanced combat-wise! Their sneak attacks scales with their levels.

So a multiclassed rogue 10/wizard 2 only has first level spells? What's wrong with that - if you want higher level spells, you have to invest in wizard levels. I fail to see why there is any issue here.

The point is that the spells are mostly useless for a 12th level character and do not compensate for losses in class abilities in the main class. Of course, as others said before, this is not true for taking a single level of a different class. As most classes are still front-loaded, this usually gives more advantages than disadvantages (of course, also here you'll find exceptions, like combining ranger with druid ). But the second wizard level is a complete waste. Even two or three more wizard levels are a complete waste. This is a design flaw.

 

[DragonLancer]

3E multi-classing works by an additive process: you add together the benefits of being in each class.

This works fine for the primary attributes of D&D characters: Hit points, Skills, Saving Throws and Attack Bonus. They are designed with this additive process in mind. Other abilities, such as Sneak Attack, also are additive in nature.

However, most abilities are written specifically for a class, and are not additive in nature. The most obvious offender here is Spellcasting, but it also applies to Bardic Knowledge, Turn Undead, Monk unarmed damage and some other very class-specific abilities, such as the Soulknife's mind blade.

I do believe that that is the point. As I say all the time, if you want to multiclass then you have to give up on something. Thats why the mage who takes fighter levels losses out on spellcasting for those levels but gains the fighter BAB and feats, and vice versa.
Thats why PrC's that allow duel levelling (Mystic Theurge being the most obvious) are IMO broken.